A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 09:00 In article <MPG.26c1c744e21cb27398a1b3(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-CF6929.20560102082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life resulting > > > from the right mix of matter....no. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > You haven't read much about the Big Bang you are so fond of referring > > to, have you? It originates from a universe that is infinitely dense and > > infinitely hot - conditions that no one can reproduce on earth today. > > Except, probably, your favorite old man with the long white beard. > > > > > > > Where did the infinitely dense and infinitely hot come from? > > So far we have gone from the dealership to the manufacturer. Wher did > the raw materials that the manufacturer use come from? You really have trouble with linear thinking, don't you? I recommend "A Brief History of Time".
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 09:01 In article <8bpeasF9rtU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:18ae96af-e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > >news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > In article <8bofofF3j...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > How little faith you have in scientists. If it were happening, it > > would > > > be > > > > > observed. > > > > > > Sounds like you're the one who has faith. > > > > > I think there are sincere scientists out there who would love to observe > > > this. > > > > > > > > 2. More importantly, new life would be very undeveloped to compete > > > > > > against life that has been evolving for billions of eyes. > > > > > > > Think in terms of logic. The ancient collision of matter creates a > > > spark of > > > > > life, according to evolutionists.. Don't you think that enviroment > is > > > more > > > > > hostile than the one that exists on earth? > > > > > > Not to new life, no. > > > > > > Scientists have already demonstrated that the chemicals of life arise > > > > spontaneously from the elements and compounds that existed on the > early > > > > earth. > > > > > Cite. > > > > > > Now the first very simple "lifeform" comes together: what other life > is > > > > it competing with? > > > > > > If such a simple lifeform came into being today, it would be in a > > > > environment of thousands and thousands of other microscopic life who > > > > would be able to feed on it. > > > > > Fine. Then all scientists have to do is "create" the enviroment that > this > > > life comes from nothing, and then make it sterile from outside > predators, > > > then observe whether this "life" eats and reproduces. > > > > > Trouble is....no life has ever been created in a lab or on earth. Cite > > > where it has. > > > > > -Greg > > > > No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life resulting > > from the right mix of matter....no. > > > > -Greg > > Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been here? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs preceded > mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science cannot answer why > no new life is manifesting itself, even though conditions are ripe for it. > > -Greg Actually conditions are noting like "ripe for it". Sorry.
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 09:02 In article <4c57869a$0$15498$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:51:44 -0700, dene wrote: > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18ae96af- > >> e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Aug > >> 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >>> news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >>> > >>>> No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? > >>> > >>> Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life > >>> resulting from the right mix of matter....no. > >> > >> Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been > >> here? > > > > I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs preceded > > mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science cannot > > answer why no new life is manifesting itself, even though conditions > > are ripe for it. > > To claim that science is a religion is to misunderstand the basic > principle of science. You observe. You theorize. You test. The best > science wins. > > ID is creationism gone to night school. There is a reason that the vast > majority of scientists don't take it seriously. There's no rigor. It's > just a bunch of unprovable assertions. There's no science in it, either.
From: John B. on 3 Aug 2010 09:03 On Aug 2, 10:51 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:82774e2a-602c-40a4-9919-55a0a9502701(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:18ae96af-e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da875(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > On Aug 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >news:alangbaker-FD89BC.11301202082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > In article <8bofofF3j...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > How little faith you have in scientists. If it were happening, it > > would > > > be > > > > > observed. > > > > > Sounds like you're the one who has faith. > > > > I think there are sincere scientists out there who would love to observe > > > this. > > > > > > > 2. More importantly, new life would be very undeveloped to compete > > > > > > against life that has been evolving for billions of eyes. > > > > > > Think in terms of logic. The ancient collision of matter creates a > > > spark of > > > > > life, according to evolutionists.. Don't you think that enviroment > is > > > more > > > > > hostile than the one that exists on earth? > > > > > Not to new life, no. > > > > > Scientists have already demonstrated that the chemicals of life arise > > > > spontaneously from the elements and compounds that existed on the > early > > > > earth. > > > > Cite. > > > > > Now the first very simple "lifeform" comes together: what other life > is > > > > it competing with? > > > > > If such a simple lifeform came into being today, it would be in a > > > > environment of thousands and thousands of other microscopic life who > > > > would be able to feed on it. > > > > Fine. Then all scientists have to do is "create" the enviroment that > this > > > life comes from nothing, and then make it sterile from outside > predators, > > > then observe whether this "life" eats and reproduces. > > > > Trouble is....no life has ever been created in a lab or on earth. Cite > > > where it has. > > > > -Greg > > > No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life resulting > > from the right mix of matter....no. > > > -Greg > > Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been here? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs preceded > mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science cannot answer why > no new life is manifesting itself, even though conditions are ripe for it.. > > -Greg Science is not a religion. A fundamental rule of biology is that in a purely natural environment, i.e., untouched by man, wildlife species go extinct at the rate of about 1 species per 10,000 years. Biologists call this the background rate. In every case, a new species evolves to replace the one that disappeared.
From: bknight on 3 Aug 2010 09:13
Any argument that involves questioning another person's faith is abominable. BK |